Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar



Who would regard the below collection of news, in any critical frame of mind, as suggesting there was NOT A LARGER ISSUE than the futures markets, or the CURRENCY IN WHICH OIL IS PURCHASED, right now?

Why is that net suggestion of all the below articles NEVER DISCUSSED HERE, while inflation and the futures and dark, conspiratorial, collusively locked up currency gambits are discussed and dissected ENDLESSLY as primary drivers of the energy markets, with enthusiastic and supremely academic precision?

Why does no-one on this website even note the peculiarly insular quality of thought which suggests "New York" and "London" can "TAKE DOWN" the below described global shortages being reported - at their presumed all-powerful manipulative will?

In the face of the accumulation of below listed articles, which argument is the RED HERRING - inflation derived shortages, or primary oil exporting nations which cease exporting in only 5 years ????

Are these web pages a forum where people can flourish their debating skills, or a place where we can get a grip on the most urgent issues of the day ????

______________________


JUL 30 Big Oil spends more, pumps fewer barrels (Reuters)
Excerpt: Exxon Mobil Corp., Royal Dutch Shell Plc and BP Plc posted falling second-quarter output, even though they plan up to a total of $61 billion in 2007 capital spending, up 5.5 percent from 2006.

JUL 27 Mexican Company Predicts End of Oil (Prensa Latina)
Excerpt: Petroleos Mexicanos (PEMEX) announced that oil reserves may run out in seven years... Even if heavy investments were made now, new oil fields would take from six to eight years to be ready and, consequently, Mexico may have to import oil to satisfy the internal market, it warned.


JUL 25 $100-a-barrel oil may be only a few months away (International Herald Tribune) Excerpt: John Kilduff of the New York office of the futures trading firm Man Financial said, "We're only a headline of significance away from $100 oil. The unrelenting pressure of increased demand has left the market a coiled spring."
JUL 25 China consumes record amount of oil in first half (China View)
Excerpt: China's consumption of apparent crude oil and refined oil products hit a record high in the first half of the year, totaling 173.03 million tons and 106.112 million tons respectively, up 6.8 percent and 9.6 percent on the previous year.

JUL 24 Russian oil output to plateau until 2020 - EconMin (Reuters)
Comment: In our opinion, without a continuing rise in Russian oil production, imminent Peak Oil is all but assured.

Excerpt: Russian oil production will remain largely unchanged until 2020, the Economy Ministry said on Tuesday, broadly confirming the country's existing energy strategy and the outlook by the International Energy Agency.

JUL 22 Slope production drops faster than estimated (Alaska Journal of Commerce) Excerpt: Alaska North Slope oil and gas fields declined 12.5 percent in production of crude oil and natural gas liquids last year, according to an analysis by the state Department of Revenue... The drop in production is higher than estimates by both industry and the state.


JUL 18 CIBC World Markets now foresees US$100-a-barrel oil by end of 2008 (Canadian Press) Excerpt: The investment banking division of the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (TSX:CM) predicts "new record highs of US$80 a barrel
JUL 17 US oil may hit $95 if OPEC does not hike output: Goldman (Reuters)
Excerpt: U.S. crude price could top $90 a barrel this autumn and hit $95 by the end of the year if OPEC keeps oil production capped at current levels, Goldman Sachs said in a report issued on Monday.

JUL 16 Potential Energy Crunch May Bring Other Fuels to Fore (Wall Street Journal) Comment: Last week the IEA, this week the oil industry. Both seem to be finally acknowledging the reality of Peak Oil.

Excerpt: World oil and gas supplies from conventional sources are unlikely to keep up with rising global demand over the next 25 years, the U.S. petroleum industry says in a draft report of a study commissioned by the government.

JUL 10 IEA Forecast Underlines Oil, Gas Supply Worries (Wall Street Journal)
Excerpt: "Oil and gas price pressures look set to remain in the coming years," the IEA report said. "Slower-than-expected [gross-domestic-product] growth may provide a breathing space, but it is abundantly clear that if the path of demand doesn't change on its own, it may well be driven to change by higher prices," the report said.

JUL 9 IEA sees oil supply crunch looming (Washington Post)
Excerpt: World oil demand will rise faster than expected to 2012 while production lags, leading to a supply crunch, the International Energy Agency said on Monday... "The results of our analysis are quite strong," said Lawrence Eagles, head of the IEA's Oil Industry and Markets Division. "Something needs to happen." "Either we need to have more supplies coming on stream or we need to have lower demand growth."

( QUESTION : Due to China and India manifestly obviously entering unstoppable growth inflexion curves - what if NEITHER adjustment happens? - THIS IS THE I.E.A. WARNING US ! )


JUL 4 Oil Trades Near 10-Month High on U.S. Gasoline Supply Concern (Bloomberg) Excerpt: Flint Hills shut a hydrocracking unit at its 300,000 barrel-a-day refinery in Corpus Christi, Texas, on July 2 because of a leak on an air fin exchanger, according to a report on a state Web site. The company wouldn't say whether the unit had been returned to service. Valero Energy reported flaring of chemicals at its 340,000 barrel-a-day Corpus Christi refinery the same day. Coffeyville Resources LLC's plant in Coffeyville, Kansas, was shut indefinitely July 2 because of flooding from the Verdigris River.

JUL 3 UK oil output shortfall raises fears of dependence on Russia (Guardian Unlimited) Excerpt: The energy industry warned today that government targets of keeping Britain's oil and gas production at 3m barrels a day by 2010 look like being missed.

JUN 27 Sans l'or noir irakien, le marché pétrolier fera face à un "mur" d'ici à 2015 (le Monde) Comment: translation here: Excerpt: The numbers are very simple, there's no need to be an expert. Within 5 to 10 years, non-OPEC production will reach a peak and begin to decline, as reserves run out. (Comment by chief economist of the IEA)
JUN 27 IEA Official: Uncertainties May Hurt Oil (United Press Intl)
Excerpt: Fatih Birol, chief economist of the Paris-based agency, identified four key uncertainties in the sector: China and Chinese economic growth; the future of international oil companies; data on oil field decline rates; and the evolution of oil price elasticity.

JUN 27 IEA chief economist: High oil prices here to stay (Reuters)
Comment: Acknowledgement of Peak Oil perhaps?
Excerpt: Oil prices are unlikely to fall far from today's near record levels of around $70 and any move in the longer term is more likely to be upwards, the International Energy Agency's chief economist said on Wednesday.

JUN 22 Robust Oil Demand Fuels Prices (Wall Street Journal)
Excerpt: The International Energy Agency, which monitors oil markets on behalf of industrialized nations, is forecasting average global oil demand of 86.1 million barrels a day this year, up 2% from last year. That is twice as fast as the 0.9% growth recorded in 2006, compared with 2005.

JUN 21 Pemex Says May Oil Output Falls 6.6% From Year Ago (Bloomberg)
Excerpt: Cantarell, the world's third-largest oil field, produced 1.58 million barrels per day, a 15 percent decline from 1.86 million barrels daily in May last year. May's daily production at the offshore field was lower than 1.59 million barrels in April.


JUN 21 OPEC might not increase production in coming months: Badri (Petroleumworld) Excerpt: OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri hinted Tuesday that the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries might not boost oil production in the coming months, saying that market fundamentals were currently balanced.

JUN 18 Shell withdraws permit for work on federal oil-shale lease (Salt Lake Tribune) Comment: We believe extracting oil from shale is too energy intensive to ever be a viable solution to Peak Oil. Excerpt: The oil, or kerogen, is locked in layers of hard rock, and the technology for affordably heating and extracting the liquid is still evolving. Shell's process of baking it in the ground is an alternative to previous methods that mined and brought the rock to the surface to cook in a furnace. Shell is experimenting with creating a "freeze wall" underground by circulating to freeze adjacent areas to keep groundwater away from the melted oil.

JUN 14 World oil supplies are set to run out faster than expected, warn scientists (The Independent) Excerpt: ... scientists led by the London-based Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, say that global production of oil is set to peak in the next four years before entering a steepening decline which will have massive consequences for the world economy and the way that we live our lives.
JUN 12 IEA sees higher world oil demand, ups pressure on Opec (Reuters)
Excerpt: In its June monthly report, the adviser to 26 industrialised countries lifted its forecast for 2007 growth in world oil demand to 1,7-million barrels per day or 2%, up 200,000 barrels per day from the previous forecast.

JUN 1 BP May Lose Project To Russia Power Grab (Wall Street Journal)
Excerpt: As the Russian government has tightened its grip over strategic oil-and-gas assets in recent years -- effectively nationalizing one of the country's biggest oil producers and forcing foreign investors to cede control of projects to Russian state companies -- opportunities for international oil giants have withered.
. . . . . . . . . . . . .

[bill]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

http://energy.ihs.com/News/Press-Rel...l-reserves.htm

IHS launches first detailed report on Iraq’s oil reserves
and production potential since start of Iraq conflict

At 116 Billion Barrels, Iraq’s Oil Reserves are World’s Third Largest;
Current Two Million Barrels of Production Capacity Could Double in Near Term


LONDON, Wednesday, April 18, 2007 (5:00 p.m.) - IHS Inc. (NYSE:IHS), a global provider of critical technical information and consulting services, today announced the upcoming launch of the Iraq Atlas, the first and only detailed analysis of oil reserves, production and development opportunities developed since the start of the Iraq conflict.
The Iraq Atlas, which will be available from IHS on May 9, is a unique overview of all known prospects and fields in Iraq, and estimates oil reserves at up to 116 billion barrels ranking the country number three in the world. The Iraq Atlas estimates that there could potentially be another 100 billion barrels of oil in the Western Desert of Iraq.
The Iraq Atlas provides the highest and most accurate level of detail available to date of reserves field-by-field. A total of 435 undrilled prospects and non-commercial discoveries, and 81 producing fields and commercial discoveries are included. Reservoirs have been re evaluated using new information and all field reserves and production numbers have been reassessed and validated. In particular, the Iraq Atlas reviews:

• All proven and in-place reserves by reservoir, including cumulative production figures
• Estimates of remaining recoverable oil and gas reserves by reservoir by the end 2006
• Location maps and structure maps for fields and prospects, along with maps of the new bidding round blocks
• New discoveries in Iraqi Kurdistan, along with a guide to exploration in this region
• The Western Desert of Iraq, which is believed to hold exploration potential of approximately 100 billion barrels of oil and a large amount of gas
• A complete review of the stratigraphy for all discoveries in Iraq, including test results and stratigraphic columns and cross sections

“The market has not had access to this level of data and analysis on Iraq’s oil reserves and production capabilities for many years,” said Ron Mobed, president and chief operating officer of the energy segment of IHS. “Clearly, the sourcing of accurate data is invaluable in planning, negotiating and contracting for the rebuilding of Iraq’s oil infrastructure. While a few companies may have selected data based on cooperative agreements, most are basing investigations of geological, cost and risk considerations on older and less detailed data. With the Iraq Atlas investors are now able to assess both exploration and field partnership opportunities in the region, and IHS is well placed to advise them on such opportunities.
“In 2007, the Iraqi government is expected to launch a bid round for 65 exploration blocks and 78 fields are also to be offered for development,” Mobed added. “The Iraq Atlas will help companies evaluate these blocks and fields quickly and accurately.”
It took more than a year of research to develop the Iraq Atlas using IHS software and a number of IHS and Iraqi geological and petroleum engineers with an average of more than 30 years of regional expertise in the Iraq exploration and production sector. The Iraq Atlas provides insight on investment issues and a host of other features across the geo-political and geological landscape.
The Iraq Atlas estimate of up to another potential 100 billion barrels of oil reserves is largely based on the establishment of new play concepts in the Western Desert of Iraq, which have been generated from a recent study of the Western Arabian Platform. The Western Desert of Iraq is widely regarded as being substantially under explored with only one commercial discovery in the region largely because Iraq has had a surplus of oil to date and little incentive for exploration.
“Most of Iraq’s oil production comes from the south of Iraq and is exported via the Persian Gulf because of repeated sabotage attacks on facilities in the north,” said Mohamed Zine, IHS regional manager for the Middle East. “This has resulted in a current production capacity of two million barrels of oil per day. However, the Iraq Atlas estimates indicate that given a stable political and civil environment, Iraq has the potential to produce four million barrels a day in the near term if necessary investments are made in repairing and modernizing facilities.”
Zine added: “The cost to produce oil in some Iraq fields is less than $2 per barrel according to our estimates and investments involved in developing the fields are minimal.”
Prior to Iraq’s war with Iran in 1980, the country had a production capacity of 3.6 million barrels of oil per day. It was 3.2 million barrels per day before the first Gulf War in 1990 and 2.7 million barrels per day before the start of the most recent conflict.

More information on the Atlas and accompanying workshop

About IHS (www.ihs.com)
IHS (NYSE: IHS) is a leading provider of critical technical information, decision-support tools and related services to customers around the world. Our data and services are used primarily by the energy, defence, aerospace, construction, electronics, and automotive industries. IHS translates the value of our global information, expertise and knowledge to enable customer success and create customer delight on a daily basis. Ranging from governments and large multinational corporations to smaller companies and technical professionals in more than 100 countries, customers rely on our offerings to facilitate decision making, support key processes and improve productivity. IHS has been in business for nearly 50 years and employs more than 2,500 people around the world.

####

NEWS MEDIA CONTACT:
IHS Media Desk
press@ihs.com

[zoog]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Lukester,

You have complained in the past that people seem reluctant to discuss this issue. Perhaps that is because every time it comes up, you, the world's number one peak oil believer, and Tet, the world's number one peak oil disbeliever, inevitably get into a pissing match. Frankly, it's a little embarrassing to watch (read).

I can only speak for myself here, but, both of you are so confrontational in the tone in which you frame your posts, that I am reluctant to even delve into them to see if any useful information can be gleaned. I'd rather just pass, even though oil supplies and prices are of interest to me. I suspect many others here would say the same.

Both of you are very passionate about your views, and while it can be beneficial in a forum to have more than one view expressed, and some constructive debate, your volleys back and forth seem to accomplish very little, other than to get you and Tet all worked up.

I cannot explain to you why peak oil does not appear to be as popular of a topic on iTulip as some other discussions. Although a search for "peak oil" turns up over 400 posts, so I'd hardly say iTulipers are ignoring the subject.

[renewable]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

I would disagree; cheaper oil by definition is a stronger d0llar. If London and Wall Street have to compete with other Bourses to sell crude that will create a lower price for crude. I don't agree that Iran's bourse is much of a threat, Iran hasn't been using the d0llar for a long time already, they did this when the US threatened to seize Iran's foreign assests. Iran doesn't export that much crude and without nuclear power Iran will be forced to supply much of their crude domestically. Russia's Bourse is the one to watch and China's Bourse is also one to keep an eye on. The only way to complete for oil sales for London and Wall Street if nuclear intimidation, military occupation, and economic threats no longer works is to lower the price of crude. Once again we're back to lower crude equals stronger d0llar. For the moment it does look like nuclear intimidation and military occupation still works.

It doesn't seem to me that the important thing is that the oil is sold in London or Wall Street - as I see it, the purpose of only 'allowing' two places in the world to sell oil is to ensure that it remains priced in dollars. If it were priced in e.g. Euros, wouldn't a substantial proportion of the trillions of dollars held in global reserves be sold for Euros?

Isn't it the expectation that the pricing of oil, and other commodities, will continue to be in dollars in the future - that keeps the excess dollars locked up in global reserves?

The releasing of these dollars from global reserves would reduce the dollar's exchange rate for other currencies (especially the Euro in this example), making it very expensive to buy oil in dollars.

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Oh come on now Zoog -

<< I'd rather just pass, even though oil supplies and prices are of interest to me. I suspect many others here would say the same.
>>

That's a little disingenuous. Is it possible the only reason you even note any frustration in my tone is precisely because no-one around here ever has anything un-qualified to say on the above topics?

Are you all fence-sitters, or do a few people put on their thinking caps, read the above posts, use elementary critical faculties to agglomerate the multiple reports - and acknowledge it looks like a major problem approaching real soon?

Forget I'm here - Please then offer a comment to this community, which is starving for actionable intelligence on this topic, if not for humanitarian concern - regarding the articles in that long list of above links, and how they so unequivocally disprove that Industrialized nation's futures markets actually do little to govern or direct these global energy market developments.

Or is your view that the futures markets largely do determine the occurrence of all these news links? :rolleyes: If so, and if the majority of I-Tulipers agree with you on that, I'd say this particular boat is steering somewhat rudderless on the topic.

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Bill -

I appreciate your post. It is informative rather than dismissive.

[zoog]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Sorry Lukester, but I stand by my post. I do not like to argue, I find it stressful. Apparently you do. When I sense anger and frustration, my instinct is to back away quietly, not dive in.

I believe peak oil is real, you don't have to convince me. I do not think, however, that it is as yet the primary factor in oil prices and available supplies. As has been discussed in Peak Oil - Has It Been Pushing Up Oil Prices?, amongst other threads.

I will spend some time to read the links you provided.

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Here's a stunning insight:

Oil prices are less relevant to determining depletion than the international reports of depletion itself. Depletion actually only manifests itself as diminishing production numbers - which in more drastic cases means super major oil fields report imminent cessation of exports directly to Wall Street.

Jeepers! Mexico's PEMEX just did exactly that!

Wow! What a radical concept! These PEMEX guys are really intruding on my peace of mind !

You may or may not have noticed Zoog - that regardless of that simple distinction, oil prices are what elicits a great deal of discussion here as the definitive benchmark on I-Tulip.

On I-Tulip, instead of discussing the international alerts posted by agencies like PEMEX, people are posting long, erudite, and ultimately myopic articles about how price action and inflation tracking disprove all the signs of depletion - while a simple reading of the articles (from international agencies) posted above might adequately clarify there is indeed an urgent production issue developing?

Empirical inquiry? Nah! We don't do empirical where the energy markets are concerned - we like rhetorical, because it leaves more room to be expansive!

You read the erudite posts of people providing arguments, which to me appear no better than solipsisms, about how the lack of oil price action proves that no scarcity is pressing upon the oil markets - and then you go on to read how some people are hanging onto those pronouncements with an almost saccharine appreciation for the insights, while the factual observations posted in the above articles (from international agencies) flatly contradict these tidy solipsistic conclusions.

No comments here other than to discuss one's tone of presentation! So much for the lively spirit of inquiry!

The one elicits effusive praise and clubbiness because I-Tulip community members get to pat each other on the back and feel all warm and fuzzy, while the other news, posted as a plain bullet list from international agencies, does not even rate a thoughtful mention here, unless irksome people like me post it and call it to your collective attention (an unforgivable nuisance).

Rather than argue fruitlessly with anyone here, which I've already learned leads absolutely nowhere as they come droning back with the same solipsisms again later, I would greatly prefer to discover people on these otherwise intelligent forums (unfortunately few as everyone is totally besotted with finance and inflation) who 'get it' regarding the above posted articles.

Wrong community for that I'm afraid. I-Tulip expresses alarm about energy depletion the way dough mixes with broken glass. Not very easily.

I reiterate, in case the point remains in any way not accepted : You cannot claim that futures markets are producing the international geological resource news posted above - to do so would be illogical, and misleading. The one (futures) governs spot prices, the other (geological) governs news about production reserves and growth.

Clear as mud to many people here apparently.

I read all the incredibly intricate analyses about rotten CDO's, endless debates on calamitous housing bringing the world down in a new global depression, imminent credit markets implosion - I read all this stuff with reasonable interest, although frankly some of these topics are getting a bit shop-worn. Nonetheless they do get trotted around again and again, week after week.

What's on the menu this week? Oh, it's collapsing home-builders with a side of overcooked mashed potatoes.

I posted a scrap of news about potential global food shortages which might cause hardship and starvation to 3 billion people, and it barely rated a yawn here. No comments whatsoever. And keep in mind, it's not my news or views - it's the news from agencies worldwide - so you could say I-Tuliper's really don't give a shit if people starve - they'd much rather pore goulishly over collapsing economic statistics and tar and feather the Federal Reserve instead - a somewhat fruitless humanitarian endeavor.

The 'finance governs everything' conceit is a quite large conceit you know. It can even lead to critical misconceptions, if other very dangerous issues come along.

_________________

There are one or two people here who've told me (I will not ever name any names) that they are walking away from this community due to it's particular brand of insularity which I note is often blended with a slightly supercilious feeling that "I-Tulip readers have more insight" than the general public. My comments above attempt to describe for you the insularity which these deserting I-Tulip members may see here.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Here's a stunning insight:

Oil prices are less relevant to determining depletion than the international reports of depletion itself. Depletion actually only manifests itself as diminishing production numbers - which in more drastic cases means super major oil fields report imminent cessation of exports directly to Wall Street.

Jeepers! Mexico's PEMEX just did exactly that!

Wow! What a radical concept! These PEMEX guys are really intruding on my peace of mind !

You may or may not have noticed Zoog - that regardless of that simple distinction, oil prices are what elicits a great deal of discussion here as the definitive benchmark on I-Tulip.

On I-Tulip, instead of discussing the international alerts posted by agencies like PEMEX, people are posting long, erudite, and ultimately myopic articles about how price action and inflation tracking disprove all the signs of depletion - while a simple reading of the articles (from international agencies) posted above might adequately clarify there is indeed an urgent production issue developing?

Empirical inquiry? Nah! We don't do empirical where the energy markets are concerned - we like rhetorical, because it leaves more room to be expansive!

You read the erudite posts of people providing arguments, which to me appear no better than solipsisms, about how the lack of oil price action proves that no scarcity is pressing upon the oil markets - and then you go on to read how some people are hanging onto those pronouncements with an almost saccharine appreciation for the insights, while the factual observations posted in the above articles (from international agencies) flatly contradict these tidy solipsistic conclusions.

No comments here other than to discuss one's tone of presentation! So much for the lively spirit of inquiry!

The one elicits effusive praise and clubbiness because I-Tulip community members get to pat each other on the back and feel all warm and fuzzy, while the other news, posted as a plain bullet list from international agencies, does not even rate a thoughtful mention here, unless irksome people like me post it and call it to your collective attention (an unforgivable nuisance).

Rather than argue fruitlessly with anyone here, which I've already learned leads absolutely nowhere as they come droning back with the same solipsisms again later, I would greatly prefer to discover people on these otherwise intelligent forums (unfortunately few as everyone is totally besotted with finance and inflation) who 'get it' regarding the above posted articles.

Wrong community for that I'm afraid. I-Tulip expresses alarm about energy depletion the way dough mixes with broken glass. Not very easily.

I reiterate, in case the point remains in any way not accepted : You cannot claim that futures markets are producing the international geological resource news posted above - to do so would be illogical, and misleading. The one (futures) governs spot prices, the other (geological) governs news about production reserves and growth.

Clear as mud to many people here apparently.

I read all the incredibly intricate analyses about rotten CDO's, endless debates on calamitous housing bringing the world down in a new global depression, imminent credit markets implosion - I read all this stuff with reasonable interest, although frankly some of these topics are getting a bit shop-worn. Nonetheless they do get trotted around again and again, week after week.

What's on the menu this week? Oh, it's collapsing home-builders with a side of overcooked mashed potatoes.

I posted a scrap of news about potential global food shortages which might cause hardship and starvation to 3 billion people, and it barely rated a yawn here. No comments whatsoever. And keep in mind, it's not my news or views - it's the news from agencies worldwide - so you could say I-Tuliper's really don't give a shit if people starve - they'd much rather pore goulishly over collapsing economic statistics and tar and feather the Federal Reserve instead - a somewhat fruitless humanitarian endeavor.

The 'finance governs everything' conceit is a quite large conceit you know. It can even lead to critical misconceptions, if other very dangerous issues come along.

_________________

There are one or two people here who've told me (I will not ever name any names) that they are walking away from this community due to it's particular brand of insularity which I note is often blended with a slightly supercilious feeling that "I-Tulip readers have more insight" than the general public. My comments above attempt to describe for you the insularity which these deserting I-Tulip members may see here.

Lukester,

Show a little compulsion and note that it is iTulip, not "I-Tulip."

For the most part, organizations are not hurt so much by the people it looses as it is by those it keeps.

It seems to me you draw a lot of inferences about iTulip as some sort of a community, when it seems to me it is a bulletin board run by Eric Janzen, and on which anonymous individuals post on a variety of subjects. It is as free a "society" as I can imagine exists. iTulip has always struck me as a place where an actually small number of people are willing to present information and discuss those topics that seem germane to not going broke and perhaps even someday making a buck/bonar. From time to time there is even some humor here and there. I've read most of what has been posted here, but certainly not every hyperlinked article or a lot of what has struck me as previously written and then dumped into posts, and it seems to me that there is nothing ever approaching the situation where posters presume to know more than anyone else or everyone else, with an exception of flow5.

So what if 3 billion or 5 billion are going to starve or get AIDS or be washed away in the next flood, tsunami, or earthquake? There are too many people on the planet anyway, and there is nothing anyone on iTulip is going to do about the over-population except perhaps wear a rubber when they do it.

From all the lather you have worked up here, whatever is your intended point has never pierced my thick skull. Just what is your point, and what do you want those who bother to post on iTulip to do about it?

Am I misrecollecting that recently you made some post about what is your current asset allocation? I can be wrong, but it seems to me you did, and it also seems that I saw nothing you had was allocated to oil or oil services. Am I correct in that recollection? If yes, really, what is your point with all the blabber about peak oil? If peak oil is real or not real, what is it's importance here if one cannot play it to potentially make a buck/bonar?

The definitive post on iTulip about the behavior of the price of oil was posted just yesterday by Finster in his comments. It has surprised me that you have not put up any comment on that thread, perhaps you just missed seeing it, or do you have some fear of arguing with Finster?

Why don't you express to us all just what sort of response you would like from iTulip contributors, or those who would be, that will make you happy?

I really don't know what the burr in your britches has been since you showed up here.

Edit: I see you were posting on Finster's thread as I was posting here. Good for you, though I was not particularly impressed that you said anything of real value, but that is just my perception. I still don't know what you are seeking to establish out of all this. Would it be pleasing to you if iTulip organized an prayer day to seek guidance for the planet for the time when oil becomes scarce? Should iTulipers start writing our worthless elected officials with pleas that they do something to stave off the day when oil no longer exists? What is to be done, Lukester, please tell us what you think should be done?

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Jim, I really like you and I continue to think you are a real gentleman on these forum pages, but this was not one of your most fortunate posts:

<< So what if 3 billion or 5 billion are going to starve or get AIDS or be washed away in the next flood, tsunami, or earthquake? There are too many people on the planet anyway, and there is nothing anyone on iTulip is going to do about the over-population except perhaps wear a rubber when they do it. >>

Frankly, my estimation of this website and community just took a significant step down based on your comment, as I realize this ethos is everywhere in this community. Everyone is hunting around for investment tips and this lends a vulgarity to the overall atmosphere at times.

I look for investments on my private time, but I obsess about them a lot less than many people here - and I get all the solid investment advice I require from specialist newsletters which I pay for, without grubbing around here looking for an investment idea.

I (thought) I came here for a wider exchange of ideas - and frankly, with some humanism in the mix as well.

You've just inadvertently downgraded iTulip to an investment blog. Too bad, I came here convinced it was a good deal more than that. For the record, I still believe Mr. Janszen aims higher than that.

Maybe you are not doing his original vision for this community justice by saying 'so what if 3 billion or 5 billion are going to starve"?

As to my appreciation of the 'definitive' analysis Finster has carried out on the oil and energy question, I've just posted my view there, so you can get a full brief on how I see it.

Want to know my frankest thoughts? I am more than a bit turned off by all the slightly panting, over-eager pursuit of investment insights which this community hashes over furiously every day. If that is it's primary scope - it seems to lack depth to me.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Jim, I really like you and I continue to think you are a real gentleman on these forum pages, but this was not one of your most fortunate posts:

<< So what if 3 billion or 5 billion are going to starve or get AIDS or be washed away in the next flood, tsunami, or earthquake? There are too many people on the planet anyway, and there is nothing anyone on iTulip is going to do about the over-population except perhaps wear a rubber when they do it. >>

Frankly, my estimation of this website and community just took a significant step down based on your comment, as I realize this ethos is everywhere in this community. Everyone is hunting around for investment tips and this lends a vulgarity to the overall atmosphere at times.

I look for investments on my private time, but I obsess about them a lot less than many people here - and I get all the solid investment advice I require from specialist newsletters which I pay for, without grubbing around here looking for an investment idea.

I (thought) I came here for a wider exchange of ideas - and frankly, with some humanism in the mix as well.

You've just inadvertently downgraded iTulip to an investment blog. Too bad, I came here convinced it was a good deal more than that. For the record, I still believe Mr. Janszen aims higher than that.

Maybe you are not doing his original vision for this community justice by saying 'so what if 3 billion or 5 billion are going to starve"?

As to my appreciation of the 'definitive' analysis Finster has carried out on the oil and energy question, I've just posted my view there, so you can get a full brief on how I see it.

Want to know my frankest thoughts? I am more than a bit turned off by all the slightly panting, over-eager pursuit of investment insights which this community hashes over furiously every day. If that is it's primary scope - it seems to lack depth to me.

Lukester,

I'll say it again, so what if 3-5 million or billion die from whatever. The fact is all of us are going to die of something. Human life in this world is in fact rather cheap--like it or not, accept it or not.

For my interests, I would not hang around iTulip if its main purpose were aimed at changing all the inhumanity that exists on the planet, not because that might not be in some sense worthy, but because actually devoting efforts to it would in my estimation prove to be a total waste of time as have almost all such efforts that have taken place during my adult life. I personally don't see it changing in the next hundred years or so. Things are only going to get worse until some disaster, natural or man-made, resets the psyches of those fortunate or unfortunate enough to be left and to start over hopefully with enough experience about what doesn't work to try to make the next stage of mankind "kinder and gentler."

For my money, if iTulip were not about "staying alive" in the investment world, all I would have to write is AMF--adios my friends.

Edit. It would be a mistake for anyone to take my opinions as representing anything other than my opinions. I speak for no one except myself and certainly any fool or genius should readily appreciate I am no kind of spokesman for iTulip.

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Jim -

For the record, I never suggested you were speaking for anyone but yourself.

However, your description regarding the futility of concern for "3 billion people starving due to soaring energy costs" reads something like "the devil take the hindmost"?

It rang a bell in my mind, and I realise you've got some company in that outlook here as so many seem to be hunting and browsing ruthlessly for the next "killer investment idea".

A comfortable affectation of cynicism, with a touch of stylish existential philosophy thrown in, insures we don't ever get immoderately distraught if we see wars, pestilence or famine occurring in other parts of the world, particularly if American Ethanol diverted farming for soccer mom SUV's contributed to the problem! (just an example).

On the other hand, if we reduce any human concern for peak oil induced mass starvation to a "bleeding heart" caricature, then sure, no-one wants to be one of those goofy types who walk around wearing their heart on their sleeve.

This is however the opposite end caricature - it says, "my caring won't change anything so why should I be concerned", it's useless to get worked up about preventable global starvation due to peak oil, and only fools think they can change the world". At the risk of sounding trite, change is made one individual at a time.

It is of course only a stereotype, but after twenty or thirty years the "concern" appendage in one's brain risks becoming a little atrophied?

That's why I find the I-Tulip constant obsessing about economic questions and technical dissection of bubble markets to be an intellectual diet that leaves me wishing for something more on occasion, even just a bit, to leaven the discussion with more human topics.

Instead, the mere mention of energy scarcity or America's using more than it's fair share (in a now shrinking pool?), or America's ethanol delusions causing hunger elsewhere elicits a chorus of yawns here. Or if it does not cause yawns it is resented as unpatriotic, which is dumber.

This deafness to the issues encompassed by "limits to growth" - an issue in the global village which Americans deeply resent because our entire national ethos was founded on limitless frontiers - well, I find the deafness to this paticular theme limits this community's range somewhat.

Here it's "all decoding the markets" all the time - 24/7. Now it's my turn to yawn.

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Jim -

For the record, I never suggested you were speaking for anyone but yourself.

However, your description regarding the futility of concern for "3 billion people starving due to soaring energy costs" reads something like "the devil take the hindmost"?

It rang a bell in my mind, and I realise you've got some company in that outlook here as so many seem to be hunting and browsing ruthlessly for the next "killer investment idea".

A comfortable affectation of cynicism, with a touch of stylish existential philosophy thrown in, insures we don't ever get immoderately distraught if we see wars, pestilence or famine occurring in other parts of the world, particularly if American Ethanol diverted farming for soccer mom SUV's contributed to the problem! (just an example).

On the other hand, if we reduce any human concern for peak oil induced mass starvation to a "bleeding heart" caricature, then sure, no-one wants to be one of those goofy types who walk around wearing their heart on their sleeve.

This is however the opposite end caricature - it says, "my caring won't change anything so why should I be concerned", it's useless to get worked up about preventable global starvation due to peak oil, and only fools think they can change the world". At the risk of sounding trite, change is made one individual at a time.

It is of course only a stereotype, but after twenty or thirty years the "concern" appendage in one's brain risks becoming a little atrophied?

That's why I find the I-Tulip constant obsessing about economic questions and technical dissection of bubble markets to be an intellectual diet that leaves me wishing for something more on occasion, even just a bit, to leaven the discussion with more human topics.

Instead, the mere mention of energy scarcity or America's using more than it's fair share (in a now shrinking pool?), or America's ethanol delusions causing hunger elsewhere elicits a chorus of yawns here. Or if it does not cause yawns it is resented as unpatriotic, which is dumber.

This deafness to the issues encompassed by "limits to growth" - an issue in the global village which Americans deeply resent because our entire national ethos was founded on limitless frontiers - well, I find the deafness to this paticular theme limits this community's range somewhat.

Here it's "all decoding the markets" all the time - 24/7. Now it's my turn to yawn.

Lukester,

You make some good points, but nothing really new. You might consider that whatever it is you personally are looking for in a web-outlet is not going to turn out to be iTulip. Shit, if it subtracts from your happiness, why fool with it? You know it seems to me there have been a couple of contributors to these fora that have started their threads and just posted, and posted, and posted about stuff that never seemed to interest anyone except them, so perhaps that would be the best avenue for you to pursue. You personally strike me as far from dumbest poster that ever showed up here, but if the topics are not to your liking, I guess it will be our loss if you choose not to share whatever are your investment insights.

I think if you scour all the threads here, you will find few, if any, where hand-wringing do-gooders are going to find real comradeship and solace. If that is correct, I don't see why one who seemingly is seeking such company should take it out on so many who clearly are not so oriented.

Whatever it is you seek to find or to elucidate for others, I hope you succeed. Good luck.

[Guest]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Very succinctly put Jim.

In your cordial invitation that I should depart your web pages, you give voice to the brash and popular "my way or the highway" rejoinder.

You also managed to dodge answering the validity of a single one of the quite "large" questions I put to you in this exchange.

I'll list them here for you again - tell me if they seem petty or significant:

> Is this website's function to discuss only investments, and if not, does it have a mandate or permit discussion of any moral issues in the world? Seems to me it does? What's meeting with your strenuous objection to my raising morality, even as just a small point?

> Is this website's function to single out the potentially largest trends of the day regardless of ideology, and present careful analyses of them? If so, why does it overwhelmingly present issues confined to economics? Are there no other "largest issues of the day"? No critical international energy depletion questions on the table at all?

> Why is resource depletion, or "limits to growth" so often saddled here with such a caricature of a reputation as a sap's idea? It's not just my view - a few others have remarked on it too, right in their posts! Aren't these issues studied with care at the highest levels of US and international governments?

> Does the employment of caricature in describing the viewpoint of the person with whom you disagree further our intelligence and understanding of "limits to growth" or "energy shortage induced mass starvation", or "energy shortage induced inflation" which, incidentally, Mr. Janszen specifically alluded in his 2001 article on Gold?

> Why has the idea "energy shortage induced inflation" disappeared from these pages as a theory, after Mr. Janszen pointed it out very clearly in the 2001 piece on gold? Seems to me it's now greeted with derision as a theory? Hmmm! The piece from 2001 goes on to note the 1980's inflation was politically induced (embargoes) yet it's common knowledge today's tightness is reserves induced (Charley Maxwell & many others).

> Has this original idea, "energy shortage induced inflation" found little favor, because it contradicts and complicates the clarity of the now popular thesis here (Finster's, which you extoll unhesitatingly as "definitive") that oil price surges find their cause exclusively in inflation and not ever the other way around?

> Are the two theses mutually exclusive - and if they are not, why do so many here today jeer at what was in effect Janszen's original statement and acknowledgement, that oil shortages directly caused inflation in the 1970's embargo?


> Why, to your mind, is a narrowly focused thesis on the effects of monetary inflation as sole relevant cause of oil price rises, a definitive interpretation of "the oil question" - compared to multiple reports coming in of major field depletions (PEMEX this past week?)?

> Which issue will make the headline news worldwide if it's confirmed, and considerably change our lives: inflationary monetary effects on oil (aka. no real shortage), or "sharp fall off in production in 3-4 years (Mexico) no longer meeting global needs"?

> What if any, relevance does PEMEX's declaration to Wall Street that it will cease exporting have for our lives, for the well being of all Americans, and for the world's opportunity to secure reliable supplies in future? (I've never heard a peep of an answer from you whether you consider that to be good cause for alarm!) Any merit to the idea? Guess what - that's what weve been arguing about!

> Lastly, why would you suggest I look elsewhere for a community in which to post such depletion news - news I consider critical and relevant, if this community thrives on diversity as you suggest?

> Do you notice a large number of proponents of resource depletion here? If not, why would you wish to further homogenize this community down to reduce the already vanishingly small percentage of "peak oil proponents" so as to leave more room for people interested in investment ideas? Would this increase the general level of inquiry on diverse events on these pages.

> Why is it "bad" to suggest we at least may injure the sensibilties of some far flung readers of these pages, by talking flippantly about hunger for billions due to scarce energy in the near future?

How do you like your website community Jim - varied and inquiring, in unusual directions, or with everyone running down the same paths (all finance, all the time - 24/7)?

[Jim Nickerson]

Re: Iran to stop pricing oil in U.S. dollar

Very succinctly put Jim.

In your cordial invitation that I should depart your web pages, you give voice to the brash and popular "my way or the highway" rejoinder.

You also managed to dodge answering the validity of a single one of the quite "large" questions I put to you in this exchange.

I'll list them here for you again - tell me if they seem petty or significant:

> Is this website's function to discuss only investments, and if not, does it have a mandate or permit discussion of any moral issues in the world? Seems to me it does? What's meeting with your strenuous objection to my raising morality, even as just a small point?

> Is this website's function to single out the potentially largest trends of the day regardless of ideology, and present careful analyses of them? If so, why does it overwhelmingly present issues confined to economics? Are there no other "largest issues of the day"? No critical international energy depletion questions on the table at all?

> Why is resource depletion, or "limits to growth" so often saddled here with such a caricature of a reputation as a sap's idea? It's not just my view - a few others have remarked on it too, right in their posts! Aren't these issues studied with care at the highest levels of US and international governments?

> Does the employment of caricature in describing the viewpoint of the person with whom you disagree further our intelligence and understanding of "limits to growth" or "energy shortage induced mass starvation", or "energy shortage induced inflation" which, incidentally, Mr. Janszen specifically alluded in his 2001 article on Gold?

> Why has the idea "energy shortage induced inflation" disappeared from these pages as a theory, after Mr. Janszen pointed it out very clearly in the 2001 piece on gold? Seems to me it's now greeted with derision as a theory? Hmmm! The piece from 2001 goes on to note the 1980's inflation was politically induced (embargoes) yet it's common knowledge today's tightness is reserves induced (Charley Maxwell & many others).

> Has this original idea, "energy shortage induced inflation" found little favor, because it contradicts and complicates the clarity of the now popular thesis here (Finster's, which you extoll unhesitatingly as "definitive") that oil price surges find their cause exclusively in inflation and not ever the other way around?

> Are the two theses mutually exclusive - and if they are not, why do so many here today jeer at what was in effect Janszen's original statement and acknowledgement, that oil shortages directly caused inflation in the 1970's embargo?


> Why, to your mind, is a narrowly focused thesis on the effects of monetary inflation as sole relevant cause of oil price rises, a definitive interpretation of "the oil question" - compared to multiple reports coming in of major field depletions (PEMEX this past week?)?

> Which issue will make the headline news worldwide if it's confirmed, and considerably change our lives: inflationary monetary effects on oil (aka. no real shortage), or "sharp fall off in production in 3-4 years (Mexico) no longer meeting global needs"?

> What if any, relevance does PEMEX's declaration to Wall Street that it will cease exporting have for our lives, for the well being of all Americans, and for the world's opportunity to secure reliable supplies in future? (I've never heard a peep of an answer from you whether you consider that to be good cause for alarm!) Any merit to the idea? Guess what - that's what weve been arguing about!

> Lastly, why would you suggest I look elsewhere for a community in which to post such depletion news - news I consider critical and relevant, if this community thrives on diversity as you suggest?

> Do you notice a large number of proponents of resource depletion here? If not, why would you wish to further homogenize this community down to reduce the already vanishingly small percentage of "peak oil proponents" so as to leave more room for people interested in investment ideas? Would this increase the general level of inquiry on diverse events on these pages.

> Why is it "bad" to suggest we at least may injure the sensibilties of some far flung readers of these pages, by talking flippantly about hunger for billions due to scarce energy in the near future?

How do you like your website community Jim - varied and inquiring, in unusual directions, or with everyone running down the same paths (all finance, all the time - 24/7)?

Lukester,

Succint you aren't, and tired I am. Write what you want as much as you like, iTulip certainly supports freedom of expression. I have not intended to tell you what I think you should do, rather just to offer some possible options to your apparent major frustrations.

If you care to pare down your list above to one or two "really important" issues, out of courtesy I'll try to offer my response, otherwise, hopefully the management will see fit to respond, or certainly anyone and everyone else is free to do so.

To you very last point, I personally prefer finance all the time with some occasional humor thrown in, with as few metaphors, and FWIW's, IMO's, FYI's, POS's, etc. as possible, but then I may be an outlier.